Hobbs and Wright BMC Pediatrics 2014, 14:128

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2431/14/128

RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access

Anal signs of child sexual abuse: a case–control

study
Christopher J Hobbs1,3* and Charlotte M Wright2

Abstract
Background: There is uncertainty about the nature and specificity of physical signs following anal child sexual
abuse. The study investigates the extent to which physical findings discriminate between children with and without
a history of anal abuse.
Methods: Retrospective case note review in a paediatric forensic unit.
Cases: all eligible cases from1990 to 2007 alleging anal abuse.
Controls: all children examined anally from 1998 to 2007 with possible physical abuse or neglect with no identified
concern regarding sexual abuse. Fisher’s exact test (two-tailed) was performed to ascertain the significance of
differences for individual signs between cases and controls. To explore the potential role of confounding, logistic
regression was used to produce odds ratios adjusted for age and gender.
Results: A total of 184 cases (105 boys, 79 girls), average age 98.5 months (range 26 to 179) were compared with
179 controls (94 boys, 85 girls) average age 83.7 months (range 35–193). Of the cases 136 (74%) had one or more
signs described in anal abuse, compared to 29 (16%) controls. 79 (43%) cases and 2 (1.1%) controls had >1 sign.
Reflex anal dilatation (RAD) and venous congestion were seen in 22% and 36% of cases but <1% of controls
(likelihood ratios (LR) 40, 60 respectively), anal fissure in 14% cases and 1.1% controls (LR 13), anal laxity in 27%
cases and 3% controls (LR 10).
Novel signs seen significantly more commonly in cases were anal fold changes, swelling and twitching. Erythema,
swelling and fold changes were seen most commonly within 7 days of last reported contact; RAD, laxity, venous
congestion, fissure and twitching were observed up to 6 months after the alleged assault.
Conclusions: Anal findings are more common in children alleging anal abuse than in those presenting with
physical abuse or neglect with no concern about sexual abuse. Multiple signs are rare in controls and support
disclosed anal abuse.
Keywords: Child abuse, Sexual, Forensic medicine, Community child health

Background conditions affecting the anus [17-21]. There have been

Child Sexual Abuse (CSA) diagnosis has been likened to
a “jigsaw puzzle” [1]. Whilst the child’s allegation is vital,
physical evidence obtained by an appropriately qualified
examiner [2] can support criminal prosecution and child
protection. Physical evidence has been the subject of
consensus statements [3] and systematic review [4]. Anal
findings are described following CSA [5-13], in children
selected for non-abuse [14-16] and those with medical
* Correspondence: chrishobbs@btinternet.com
1
St James’s University Hospital, Leeds, UK
3
Yorkshire Medicolegal Chambers, Albion Mills, Albion Road, Greengates,
Bradford BD10 9TQ, UK
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article
two previous studies where anal signs in different groups
of children were compared [10,11].
If present, anal signs may be used in children with a
disclosure of CSA to provide corroboration for court pro-
ceedings, but it is not currently clear how much reliance
can be placed on which signs. There is even less certainty
about the extent to which anal signs seen in children with
no disclosure or suspicion should raise concern about
possible CSA and the need for further investigation.
This study aimed to compare the prevalence of anal
findings as assessed by specialist forensically trained
paediatricians in a group of children where the history

© 2014 Hobbs and Wright; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited.
Hobbs and Wright BMC Pediatrics 2014, 14:128
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2431/14/128
included a statement by the child of anal abuse with a
group of children with a history solely of non-sexual
physical abuse or neglect and with no concerns re sexual
abuse.
Methods
Cases and controls less than 16 years of age were identi-
fied retrospectively from a paediatric forensic centre in
Leeds, a metropolitan city in Northern England. Chil-
dren referred by social services or police are usually seen
within 72 hours, either before or after formal interview
[22]. All medical reports are held on a dedicated elec-
tronic database including digital clinical images since
2001. It was routine practice at this time to photo docu-
ment examination findings in all children examined for
forensic purposes.
Case selection
Cases
These were all children on the data base who had made
a specific disclosure of anal abuse investigated by statu-
tory agencies. The reports database was searched using
the phrases “anal abuse” and “anal penetration” between
1990 and 2007. In addition all children with genital/anal
photographs in the clinical images database were identi-
fied. This enabled an additional smaller group of cases
missed by the key word search to be identified, the
reports of these children having been checked manually.
Controls
These were all children referred to the same centre for
suspected physical abuse or neglect of themselves or sib-
lings who had forensic inspection of the anus in accord-
ance with national guidance [23], and in whom CSA was
excluded as far as possible. There were more controls
than cases so only children seen between 1998 and 2007
and aged 3 years or over were used. Potential controls
were identified in the database by using the phrase
“non-accidental injury” then manually searching the
reports for evidence of an anal examination. In addition
a further larger group of control children with anal pho-
tographs were identified via the clinical images database
over the same time period and this included non-index
siblings and neglected children.
Children were excluded as controls if there had been
any suggestion in the report of:
1. Allegation of sexual abuse
2. Sexualized behavior
3. Current or past contact with known or suspected
sexual offender
4. Current or past concern from referring agency re
CSA in child or sibling
5. Sexually transmitted infection
Page 2 of 7
6. Presentation with gross genital or anal injury (from
either an alleged accident or abuse)
7. Medical condition potentially affecting the anus e.g.
Crohn’s disease, severe chronic constipation,
myotonic dystrophy
Children with mild constipation or soiling were in-
cluded as controls as these symptoms were not uncom-
mon in children whether abused or non-abused. No
exclusion was made on the presence of physical signs
(anal or otherwise) whether or not suspected to be
related to CSA.
Examination procedure
Examinations were undertaken by paediatricians spe-
cially trained in assessment of suspected CSA working
in a team. Specialist paediatric registrars in training were
supervised by an experienced forensically trained con-
sultant paediatrician.
Anal inspection was routinely undertaken in the left
lateral position without digital or instrumental examin-
ation. Buttock separation was maintained for 30 seconds
to allow anal dilatation to occur when present. A stand-
ard examination proforma encouraged detailed record-
ing of history and examination. Olympus and Zeiss
colposcopes with 35 mm cameras (film and digital) were
used.
Physical signs were confirmed either at joint medical
examination or by review of photographic records or
both. Cases were discussed at weekly departmental
meetings and reports and photographs peer reviewed
monthly.
Data retrieval
Details of the allegation, anal findings and constipation
history were extracted from medical reports and entered,
anonymized, onto an access database. Signs were de-
scribed according to definitions in Table 1. Estimated
diameter of reflex anal dilatation (RAD) was recorded
when present.
Ethical approval was obtained from Leeds (East)
Health Service Ethics Committee (reference number 08/
H1306/106).
Analysis
Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 14.0 for
windows. Fisher’s exact test (two-tailed) was performed
to ascertain the significance of differences for individual
signs between cases and controls. Likelihood and odds
ratios for cases versus controls were calculated for all
signs. The likelihood ratio for any sign is the ratio of the
percentage of cases showing the signs to the percentage
found in the controls [25]. For signs not found at all in
controls, to avoid division by zero, one dummy female
Hobbs and Wright BMC Pediatrics 2014, 14:128 Page 3 of 7
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2431/14/128

Table 1 Definition of anal physical signs used in this study [4,9,24]

Signs summarized in RCPCH systematic review
Reflex Anal Dilatation The dynamic observation of the anus opening after minimal buttock traction, with relaxation of the external and
internal sphincter muscles.
Laxity Decreased anal muscle tone. This is a static findings; the diameter does not change upon inspection.
Gaping An anus which, on separation of the buttocks, is already dilated, with a view into the anal canal or rectum, and remains
so for the duration of the examination. This is a static sign. Anal gaping is of greater degree than anal laxity
Fissure/laceration A break (split) in the perianal skin which radiates out from the anal orifice which may be superficial or deep
Reddening Redness of the skin and/or mucous membranes caused by dilatation of the underlying capillaries
Perianal venous congestion The collection of venous blood in the venous plexus of the perianal tissues creating a flat or swollen purple
discoloration that may be localized or diffuse. It is distinct from bruising
Tag A protrusion of anal verge or perianal skin, which interrupts the symmetry of the perianal skin folds.
Scar Fibrous tissue that replaces normal tissue after the healing of a wound.
Bruise A localized collection of blood in the skin and or subcutaneous tissue occurring as a result of damage to the capillaries
or larger blood vessels allowing blood to leak into the tissues leading to skin discoloration
Novel/other signs
Twitching anus Rapid contraction and relaxation of the anal sphincter without dilatation
Swelling (“tyre sign”) Swelling of the perianal area, giving appearance of a tyre
Funnelling A deep-set or dished anal appearance, but without full dilatation
Abrasion A superficial injury involving only the outer layers of the skin/mucous membrane that does not extend to the full
thickness of the epidermis.
Mucosal Prolapse Rectal mucosa extending down through a dilated anal sphincter
Anal Verge Deficit A defect or gap in the tissue overlying the subcutaneous external anal sphincter at the most distal portion of the anal
canal (anoderm) which extends exteriorly to the perianal skin.
Fold Change Unusual, irregular or asymmetrical folding of the perianal skin radiating from the anal verge
Soiled The presence of significant quantities of faeces around the anus

control with mean values for age and date was added
who was positive for all those signs. To explore the
potential role of confounding, logistic regression was
used to produce odds ratios adjusted for age and gender.
Results
A total of 19,785 children were seen and reported for
child protection concerns in Leeds from January 1990 to
December 2007, of whom 3,119 were categorized by the
examining doctor as likely CSA. From these, 184 cases
(105 boys, 79 girls) were identified with disclosure by
the child of anal abuse, mean age 98.5 months, range 26
to 179 months, with only 7 younger than 3 years; 142
were identified from main database, 42 via the photo-
graphic database. There were 179 controls (94 boys, 85
girls, average age 83.7 months (range 35–193) from 1998
to 2007; 76 identified from the main database, 103 from
photographic database.
Thirteen permanent paediatric staff examined 136
cases (74%) and 100 controls (56%) of whom three ex-
amined 35% of cases and 31% of controls. The remain-
der were examined by trainees supervised by forensically
trained paediatricians.
In 134 cases where an object was specified, alleged
penetration was penile for 64% (86) and digital for 30%
(41). A majority of cases (74%) had one or more core
Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health signs [4]
(Table 2) and 43% two or more, compared to only 16%
and 1% of controls respectively.
Training grade examiners reported fewer examinations
where these signs were present than fully trained foren-
sic paediatricians (cases: 68% versus 75%; controls 11% v
19%) but these differences were not significant (P = 0.4
and 0.2 respectively).
RAD and perianal venous congestion were seen com-
monly in cases but rarely or not at all in controls, result-
ing in high likelihood ratios. The estimated maximum
horizontal diameter of dilatation was stated in 27 cases
and was over 1 cm in 14 (52%) cases. Fissures and laxity
were also seen more commonly in cases than controls.
Anal tags were uncommon overall.
Of the less recognised signs, most were reported
significantly more often in cases than controls (Table 3).
Fold changes, were described fairly often, but the others
were generally less common.
There were no significant effects of age or examiner
grade on the prevalence of signs (data not shown) and
simultaneous adjustment for age, gender and examin-
ation era made no meaningful difference to the results
(Tables 2 and 3).
Hobbs and Wright BMC Pediatrics 2014, 14:128 Page 4 of 7
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2431/14/128

Table 2 Frequency of classic signs associated with anal abuse in cases and controls
Unadjusted Adjusted+
Sign Cases Controls LR* OR P OR 95% CI
Reflex anal dilatation 41 22% 0 40.1 51.3 <.0001 62.35 8.4 - 462
Gaping 5 2.7% 0 4.9 5.0 0.12
Laxity/reduced anal tone 49 27% 5 2.8% 9.6 4.9 <.0001 13.7 5.3 - 35.8
Reddening/Erythema 56 30% 15 8.3% 3.6 4.9 <.0001 5.3 2.8 - 10.0
Perianal venous congestion 66 36% 1 0.6% 59.8 99.6 <.0001 101 13.8 - 743
Fissure/laceration 26 14% 2 1.1% 12.8 14.6 <.0001 13.5 3.1 - 58
Tag 8 4.3% 10 5.6% 0.8 0.8 >0.5
Scar 10 5.4% 0 9.0 10.3 0.002 8.2 1.0 - 66.4
Anal or perianal bruising 0 0
None of the above signs 48 26% 150 84% 0.31 0.07 <.0001 0.059 0.03 - 0.10
More than one sign 79 43% 2 1.1% 38.6 66.6 <.0001 74 17.7 - 311
Total number 184 179
*To prevent division by zero error, for each signs where no control manifest that sign, one dummy female control has been added positive for that sign, with
mean values for age and date.

The prevalence of signs varied with interval to examin-
ation (Table 4). Erythema, swelling and fold changes
occurred most commonly within 7 days of the alleged
assault. RAD, laxity, venous congestion, fissure and
twitching were seen up to 6 months.
History of constipation was recorded in 15 cases (7
boys, 8 girls), of whom 5 had RAD and 2 had fissures.
There were 3 constipated controls (all girls) and each
had one of venous congestion, a fissure and tag.
Discussion
Martial wrote in 1st century AD that “the favourite sex-
ual use of children was not fellatio, but anal intercourse”
[26]. Summit wrote “Manual, oral and anal containment
of the penis are the “normal” activities of incestuous
intercourse, as they are also for the more typically out of
family sexual assault of boys” [27]. Anal signs were
central in the Cleveland Inquiry [28] which recom-
mended further study which in turn lead to publications
by the Royal College of Physicians which provided guid-
ance for clinicians [29,30]. Allegations of anal abuse ap-
pear to be relatively rare, as these disclosed cases
represented only 5% of all CSA cases seen. This possibly
explains why the recent RCPCH review noted a serious
lack of evidence on anal signs in children [4]. The result-
ing uncertainty has limited doctor’s ability to provide
clear opinions.
Identification of a group where CSA can be confi-
dently diagnosed or excluded is always challenging.
While we cannot be certain that all the children who al-
leged anal abuse were true cases, it is generally accepted
that disclosure is strongly indicative of abuse. Ideally the
non abused controls would be sampled from the general
population, but in practice recruiting a truly representative

Table 3 Frequency of other anal signs not discussed by RCPCH (2008) in cases and controls
Unadjusted Adjusted+
Sign Cases Controls LR* OR P OR 95% CI
Fold changes 34 18.5% 3 1.7% 10.9 13.3 <.0001 8.7 3.0 - 25
Twitching 17 9.2% 2 1.1% 8.4 9.1 <.0001 9.2 2 - 41
Swelling 12 6.5% 0 0 11.8 12.6 <0.001 15.4 1.9 - 120
Funnelling 8 4.3% 1 0.6% 7.2 8.1 0.037 6.4 0.75 - 53
Mucosal prolapse 8 4.3% 0 0 7.2 8.1 0.007 8.1 1.0 - 70
Abrasion 7 3.8% 0 0 6.9 7.1 0.015 10.6 1.2 - 90
Deficit 5 2.7% 0 0 NA 0.061
Warts 1 0.5% 0 0 NA 1
Soiling 5 2.7% 11 6.1% NA 0.13
*To prevent division by zero error, for each sign where no control manifest that sign, one dummy female control has been added positive for that sign, with
mean values for age and date. This excludes variables with 5 or less positive in cases.
+Adjusted for date of exam, age and gender.
Hobbs and Wright BMC Pediatrics 2014, 14:128 Page 5 of 7
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2431/14/128

Table 4 Anal findings in cases by time interval between last episode of abuse to examination
Time since last assault Unknown <7 days 7 days to 6 months >6 months P*
Reflex anal dilatation 17 (29%) 13 (22%) 9 (20%) 2 (9%) 0.21
Laxity 18 (31%) 15 (25%) 11 (25%) 5 (23%) 0.76
Reddening 21 (36%) 23 (39%) 11 (25%) 1 (4.3%) 0.002
Venous congestion 22 (38%) 23 (39%) 15 (34%) 6 (26%) 0.28
Fissure 5 (9%) 11 (19%) 9 (16%) 1 (4%) 0.21
Scar 6 (10.3%) 2 (3.4%) 2 (4.5%) 0 0.57
Any core sign 44 (76%) 48 (81%) 33 (75%) 11 (48%) 0.005
2 or more core signs 30 (52%) 30 (51%) 14 (32%) 5 (22%) 0.008
Fold changes 10 (17%) 15 (25%) 7 (16%) 2 (8.7%) 0.07
Twitching 2 (3.4%) 9 (15%) 4 (9.1%) 2 (8.7%) 0.32
Swelling 5 (8.6%) 6 (10%) 1 (2%) 0 0.04
Funnelling 2 (3.4%) 2 (3.4%) 3 (7%) 1 (4.3%) 0.69
Mucosal prolapse 4 (6.9%) 3 (5%) 0 1 (4.3%) 0.57
Abrasion 1 (2%) 6 (10%) 0 0 0.018
Total 54 58 55 17
*χ2 trend excluding unknown.

group and excluding CSA can be problematic. Selection of
children from the general population has proved quite
difficult, but it also raises serious ethical considerations. In
one of the few studies of this kind [15] only 10% of parents
approached participated and some later admitted that
concerns that their child had been abused motivated them
to participate. In that study perianal venous congestion
was more commonly seen (16%) than in another study
where 1% of younger children showed this sign [14].
A different approach was used in a recent study [11].
Children evaluated for possible sexual abuse were di-
vided into 2 groups, one with a low probability (917
children) and one with a high probability (198 children)
of having been anally penetrated. Comparison was made
between these groups in terms of the physical signs
observed. However identifying comparison children with
a low risk of having been anally penetrated in a group of
children referred for sexual abuse evaluation is problem-
atic as suggested by the presence of anal bruising in 10,
anal fissure in 25 and anal laceration in 3. Consequently,
the solution of choosing as controls children examined
with concerns about other forms of abuse where the
routine practice was to include anal examination seemed
overall the best solution to us.
While physically abused and neglected children have a
known increased risk of CSA [31], in this study the fact
that wide ranging sensitive information was available
minimised the likelihood of including unrecognised
CSA. However, it is possible that an occasional sexually
abused child could unintentionally have been included
in the control group and if so this would mean that the
prevalence of signs seen in the controls would be
overestimated. Control children with anal photographs
were more likely to be included in this study than those
without, and this could also have had the effect of
overestimating the proportion of controls with positive
findings. If this were the case that would imply that the
true difference between groups was in fact even greater.
There were small differences in examiner status be-
tween cases and controls, cases were drawn over a lon-
ger time period than controls and the age range of cases
and controls was slightly different, but statistical adjust-
ment for all these factors made no meaningful difference
to the results.
An important remaining concern is the possibility of
examiner bias. When examining a child who has alleged
anal abuse, a physician might be more confident in
reporting abnormal findings than in a child with no such
history. However both groups were examined by the
same staff who would be alert to the possibility of undis-
closed anal abuse and with experience of eliciting the
signs in question. This makes it possible that examiners
in this centre were more likely to detect signs in general,
but this would apply to both cases and controls.
Thus while the limitations of the samples must be
recognised, this remains the first case/control study in
which a large group of children all of whom disclosed
anal abuse was examined using the same techniques and
examiners as controls, using well defined terminology.
The difference in frequency of some signs between cases
and controls suggest that they are likely to relate to
abuse. In particular RAD and perianal venous congestion
were seen frequently in cases, but rarely or not at all in
controls. RAD is dramatic, involves dilatation of both
Hobbs and Wright BMC Pediatrics 2014, 14:128 Page 6 of 7
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2431/14/128

Table 5 Comparison with published studies reviewed by RCPCH [4]

Cases Controls
Sign This study RCPCH review This study RCPCH review
Reflex anal dilatation 22.3% 10 – 34% [5,6,8,10,11,13,32,33] 0% <1 – 3.6% (left lateral) [11,14]
Laxity/reduced anal tone 26.6% 3 – 14% [7,12,34] 2.8% No reports
Reddening/erythema 30.4% 1 – 12.6% [5-8,11,13,35] 8.3% 7 – 13.2% [11,13,14]
Perianal venous congestion 35.9% 8 – 36% [5,8,10,11,36] 0.6% 1% – 34.3% [11,13,14]
Fissure/laceration 14.1% 11 – 50% [5-7,10-12,32,35-38] 1.1% 1 – 3% [11,13,14]
Anal or perianal bruising 0% 0 – 10% [7,10,11,32] 0% 0 – 1.1% [11,14]
Any signs 74% 1 – 95% [5,6,32-35,39] 16% No reports

sphincters, requiring observation for up to 30 seconds as
it does not always appear immediately. Previous studies
found RAD in 10% to 34% disclosing anal abuse and 5%
to 20% reporting any sexual abuse (Table 5) [4]. In chil-
dren selected for non-abuse, RAD was noted in 5%
examined in the knee chest, but less than 1% in the left
lateral position [16]. Another study [15] found none with
the sign. An earlier study which has influenced practice
especially in North America [17] described anal dilata-
tion in 49% children selected for non-abuse examined in
the knee chest position, for up to 8 minutes. But this
position is rarely used in the UK. Apart from that study
our figures for cases (22%) and controls (0%) lie within
the range of other studies for both abused and “non-
abused” in the left lateral position.
Anal laxity (reduced anal tone) was seen more
commonly in our cases than in earlier studies [7,12,36],
but had never been previously considered in children
selected for non-abuse (Table 5). Anal fissure and lacer-
ation are injuries in the perianal skin. There is a lack of
agreed definitions to fully differentiate them. Our figures
which combine fissures with lacerations gave prevalence
for both cases and controls which were within the range
described in other studies (Table 5). Perianal venous
congestion was at the upper end of the range for cases
in previous studies and the lower end for controls
(Table 5). As with most previous studies, anal bruising
was uncommon following abuse and rarely reported in
“non-abuse”. Erythema was seen more commonly than
in previous studies probably reflecting a higher propor-
tion examined soon after an assault than in previous
studies.
Anal dilatation and venous congestion were so rarely
seen in controls, that it raises the possibility that they
should be recognised as signs which should prompt
further investigation, as long as they are interpreted in
the broad context of a detailed medical, social and family
assessment and the child’s behaviour and demeanour.
The highest frequency of signs was seen in those
abused less than 7 days previously and in those where
the timing of the abusive episode was not known. But
none of the signs were seen only within 7 days of the alleged
assault, suggesting that examination is worthwhile even
some weeks after the alleged assault.
The majority of cases had at least one sign, though in
many these were non-specific. This observation is con-
sistent with previous studies reviewed by the RCPCH
[4]. Of seven studies reporting any abnormal signs, two
found these in 61-95% [5,35] and two in 46% and 57%
[6,33], despite widely differing methodology and defini-
tions. However a quarter had no signs, so the absence of
physical signs could not be said to negate a child’s
history or exclude the possibility of abuse.
Conclusions
Anal physical findings in children are described follow-
ing a disclosure of anal penetrative abuse. A majority of
children who disclosed anal abuse had some signs, many
of which were seen almost exclusively in cases and
nearly half had multiple anal signs. Nearly half the cases
had multiple anal signs compared to only 1% of controls.
Reflex anal dilatation was seen in 22% cases but no
controls.
This study strengthens understanding of physical signs
following anal abuse and underlines the need for careful
physical examination where this form of abuse is alleged
by the child or suspected by those responsible for his
protection. Anal findings thus have the potential to pro-
vide important corroboration of disclosed anal abuse.
Competing interests
CJH is a retired NHS consultant who undertakes locum work that may
involve child protection assessments and also provides expert medico legal
opinions on Child Protection cases for which he receives a fee. CW is an
honorary NHS consultant who advises on academic aspects of Child
Protection and does not usually undertake paid medico legal work.
Authors’ contributions
CJH was involved in: the conception, design, analysis and interpretation of
data. Drafting the article and revising it critically for important intellectual
content. Final approval of the version to be published. CMW was involved in:
analysis and interpretation of data. Drafting the article and revising it
critically for important intellectual content. Final approval of the version to
be published. Both authors have given final approval for the publication of
this manuscript.
Hobbs and Wright BMC Pediatrics 2014, 14:128
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2431/14/128
Authors’ information
CJH and CW are both involved with the Royal College of Paediatrics and
Child Health Project on the Physical Signs of Child Sexual Abuse, CJH at one
time was Chair of the Anal Working Group and CW is a member.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Paediatric colleagues in Leeds who examined these children
and whose work underpinned this study and to Professor Neil McIntosh for his
detailed and helpful comments on the paper. Acknowledgement is also made
to the dedication and care given to abused children by our late colleague
Dr. Jane Wynne whose vision inspired this work.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the
public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Author details
1 Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis; 1985.
St James’s University Hospital, Leeds, UK. 2PEACH Unit, School of Medicine,
MVLS College, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK. 3Yorkshire Medicolegal
Chambers, Albion Mills, Albion Road, Greengates, Bradford BD10 9TQ, UK.
Received: 20 August 2013 Accepted: 16 May 2014
Published: 27 May 2014
References
1. Hobbs CJ, Hanks HGI, Wynne JM: Clinical aspects of Child Sexual Abuse, Child
Abuse and Neglect: A Clinicians’ Handbook. Churchill Livingstone
Edinburgh; 1999.
2. Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, Faculty of Forensic and Legal
Medicine: Paediatric forensic examinations in relation to possible child sexual
abuse. London: Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health; 2007.
3. Adams JA, Kaplan R, Starling SP, Mehta NH, Finkel MA, Botash NS, Kellogg
ND, Shapiro RA: Guidelines for medical care for children who may have
been sexually abused. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 2007, 20(30):163–172.
4. The Physical signs of Child Sexual Abuse: An evidence based review and
guidance for best practice. London: Royal College of Paediatrics and Child
Health; 2008.
5. Bruni M: Anal findings in sexual abuse of children (a descriptive study).
J Forensic Sci 2003, 48(6):1343–1346.
6. Muram D: Anal and perianal abnormalities in prepubertal victims of
sexual abuse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989, 161(2):278–281.
7. Reinhart MA: Sexually abused boys. Child Abuse Negl 1987, 11(2):229–235.
8. Hobbs CJ, Wynne JM: Buggery in childhood - a common syndrome of
child abuse. Lancet 1986, ii:792–796.
9. Hobbs CJ, Wynne JM: Sexual abuse of English boys and girls: the
importance of anal examination. Child Abuse Negl 1989, 13(2):195–210.
10. Pierce AM: Anal fissures and anal scars in anal abuse—are they
significant? Pediatr Surg Int 2004, 20:334–338.
11. Myhre AK, Adams JA, Kaufhold M, Davis JL, Suresh P, Kuelbs CL: Anal
findings in children with and without probable anal penetration: a
retrospective study of 1115 children referred for suspected sexual abuse.
Child Abuse Negl 2013, 37:465–474.
12. Spencer MJ, Dunklee P: Sexual abuse of boys. Childhood sexual abuse:
role of the family physician. Pediatrics 1986, 78:133–138.
13. McCann J, Voris J: Perianal injuries resulting from sexual abuse: a
longitudinal study. Pediatrics 1993, 91(2):390–397.
14. Berenson AB, Somma-Garcia A, Barnett S: Perianal findings in infants
18 months of age or younger. Pediatrics 1993, 91:838–840.
15. Myhre AK, Bemtzen K, Bratlid D: Perianal anatomy in non-abused
preschool children. Acta Paediatr 2001, 90(11):1321–1328.
16. McCann J, Voris J, Simon M, Wells R: Perianal findings in prepubertal
children selected for non-abuse: a descriptive study. Child Abuse Negl
1989, 13:179–193.
17. Agnarsson U, Warde C, McCarthy G, Evans N: Perianal appearances
associated with constipation. Arch Dis Child 1990, 13:1231–1234.
18. Clayden GS: Reflex anal dilatation associated with severe chronic
constipation in children. Arch Dis Child 1988, 63(7):832–836.
19. Hey F, Buchanan PC, Littlewood JM: Differential diagnosis in child sexual
abuse. Lancet 1987, ii:283.
20. Vickers D, Morris K, Coulthard MG, Eastham EJ: Anal Signs in haemolytic
uraemic syndrome. Lancet 1988, i:998.
Page 7 of 7
21. Reardon W, Hughes HE, Green SH, Lloyd Woolley V, Harper PS: Anal
abnormalities in childhood myotonic dystrophy: a possible source of
confusion in child sexual abuse. Arch Dis Child 1992, 67:527–528.
22. Watkeys JM, Price LD, Upton PM, Maddox A: The timing of medical
examination following an allegation of sexual abuse: is this an
emergency? Arch Dis Child 2008, 93:851–856.
23. Child Protection Companion. London: Royal College of Pediatrics and Child
Health; 2006.
24. American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children: Glossary of terms
and the interpretations of findings for child sexual abuse evidentiary
examinations. Am Professional Soc on the Abuse of Children 1998.
25. Deeks JJ, Altman DG: Diagnostic tests 4: likelihood ratios. BMJ 2004,
329(7458):168–169.
26. Martial: Epigrams, vol 2 Kerr. Cambridge Mass; 1968.
27. Summit R: Causes, Consequences, Treatment and Prevention of Sexual
Assault against Children chapter 2 pp 47-97. In “Assault against children,
why it happens and how to stop it”. Edited by Meier JH. London and
28. Report of the Inquiry into Child Abuse in Cleveland 1987. In Edited by
Butler Sloss E. London: HMSO; 1988.
29. Physical signs of Sexual Abuse. 1st edition. The Royal College of Physicians of
London; 1991.
30. Physical signs of Sexual Abuse. 2nd edition. The Royal College of Physicians
of London; 1997.
31. Hobbs CJ, Wynne JM: The sexually abused battered child. Arch Dis Child
1990, 65(4):423–427.
32. Palusci VJ, Cox EO, Shatz EM, Schultze JM: Urgent medical assessment
after child abuse. Child Abuse Negl 2006, 30(4):367–380.
33. Adams JA, Ahmad M, Phillips P: Anogenital findings and hymenal
diameter in children referred for sexual abuse examination. Adolesc Paed
Gynaecol 1988, 1:123–127.
34. Roane TH: Male victims of sexual abuse: a case review within a child
protective team. Child Welfare 1992, 71(3):231–239.
35. Adams JA, Girardin B, Faugno D: Adolescent sexual assault:
documentation of acute injuries using photo-colposcopy. J Pediatr
Adolesc Gynecol 2001, 14(4):175–180.
36. Adams JA, Harper K, Knudson S, Revilla J: Examination findings in legally
confirmed child sexual abuse: it’s normal to be normal. Pediatrics 1994,
94:310–317.
37. Emans SJ, Woods ER, Flagg NT, Freeman A: Genital findings in sexually
abused, symptomatic and asymptomatic, girls. Pediatrics 1987, 79(5):778–785.
38. Heppenstall-Heger A, McConnell G, Ticson L, Guerra L, Lister J, Zaragoza T:
Healing patterns in anogenital injuries: a longitudinal study of injuries
associated with sexual abuse, accidental injuries, or genital surgery in
the preadolescent child. Pediatrics 2003, 112(4):829–837.
39. Heger A, Ticson L, Velasquez O, Bernier R: Children referred for possible
sexual abuse: medical findings in 2384 children. Child Abuse Negl 2002,
26(6-7):645–659.
doi:10.1186/1471-2431-14-128
Cite this article as: Hobbs and Wright: Anal signs of child sexual abuse:
a case–control study. BMC Pediatrics 2014 14:128.
Submit your next manuscript to BioMed Central
and take full advantage of:
• Convenient online submission
• Thorough peer review
• No space constraints or color figure charges
• Immediate publication on acceptance
• Inclusion in PubMed, CAS, Scopus and Google Scholar
• Research which is freely available for redistribution
Submit your manuscript at
www.biomedcentral.com/submit